Considering that Slashdot even reported that this was happening, it is not that hard for them to file John Doe lawsuits and then subpoena the universities for the names of the students.
From reading the RIT letter posted above, it looks like the sent subpoenas to the different universities and got the universities to provide the names of the students. I doubt that the RIAA actually got onto I2 themselves.
Or, they could have just sent subpoena's to the Universities requesting the identities of the users. I highly doubt that the RIAA was on I2. It is much easier for them to subpoena the university (as implied by the RIT letter).
It doesn't matter that they weren't charging for access to the information. Copyright infringement occurs when you copy someone else's protected work.
I remember back during the lawsuit when slashdotters were complaining that the RIAA wasn't suing the actual infringer. Now that they are suing the actual infringers, why is everyone complaining.
And no, the RIAA isn't going to sue you for making and mp3 rip of your friend's CD (although they would be within their rights to do sue). They are going to sue those who are doing the largest amount of copying. That used to be bootleggers, but it is now everyday Joe college students sharing hundreds of gigabytes of copyrighted material to everyone else on the Internet.
Patent applications are published after 18 months, and the patent applicant can opt out of publication if he certifies that he is not going to file an foreign patent applications.
The main problem regarding contracts is that their whole theorization stands on the equality of the bargain power, which does NOT exist when you look at an employee/employer relationship.
That is not true. Actors in contractual situations are almost never have "equality in bargaining power." My company can choose to use one of many different suppliers for printer paper. Because of that, we can force our supplier to give us very good rates on the paper that we buy. There is no equality between us and the supplier. That doesn't mean that the contract is in any way invalid or unfair.
WRT to the Microsoft incident, I don't see any problems with Microsoft firing him as long as it did not violate anything in his employment agreement. I would be firied quicker than a boston butt at a barbeque competition if I posted pictures of where I work on the Internet. I don't have anything wrong with that. Now, if Microsoft didn't have a provision in his hiring contract about him being an at-will employee or restricting him on what information he could post, then too bad for them.
And which unalienable right are you talking about. The three that were expressly mentioned in the Declaration of Indenpendance are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I am talking about the unalienable right of liberty, namely the liberty to contract as I please.
First, this is a patent application, thus it has not yet been granted by the patent office. Even though they have let some stupid stuff through, there is no way that the PTO will let something this bad be granted a patent.
On the other hand, this patent does not apply only to the BASIC language. Each claim of a patent is treated as a seperate patent. Thus claim one covers any system that does the particular operation. Claim two covers a system where the compiler is a BASIC compiler. Claim three covers any system where the operator used is "IsNot" regardless of whether or nor the language is BASIC. Claim four covers any system wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, parser, analyzer, and executable generator (regardless of language).
The point was that the sentance could have been taken out of context from the five page letter that Ashcroft sent, not from the AP article that only cites the one sentance. Please show me the context in the letter where it appears.
I understand that CherryOS has been deceptive in its origins about where the emulation came from, but what would be wrong if they distributed it under a different name? I thought that one of the advantages of the GPL was that it did not impose any naming provisions like the older BSD licenses did. As long as the CherryOS people are following the guidelines of the GPL (relelasing source, etc.), what would be wrong with their distribution?
Why did I see this article? I can't stand reading/. politics section, thus I set my preferences not to show any politics on the front page. However, I keep on getting them.
There is not a limitation to the number of times that you renew a trademark (as long as it is still in use). Thus, they absolutely can be perpetual (unlike patents and copyrights).
For example, UPS cannot, and will never be able to, trademark the color brown despite their significant investment in the commercials "What can BROWN do for you?"
As noted above, UPS has trademarked the color brown. Serial number 76408109.
Are you in jail? Are you blown up? Yeah, I didn't think so. The government has often restricted where people can congregate. Labelling something a "Free speech zone" is one of the worst choice of wording I have ever heard, but the dumb labelling does not make it unconstitutional.
Of course, the King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Military Command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. Before the Irgun set off the bombs in the Hotel, they called the hotel, the French Consulate, and the Palestine Post and gave them a warning. However, the British responded "We don't take orders from the Jews."
After the bombing, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing (unlike Arab reactions then and now to attacks on Jews). The parent of this post refers to the Hanagah as a terrorist organization. While that term could be used against the Irgun with much more credence, the Irgun split from the Haganah specifically because the Haganah would not take action that could be considered terrorist actions today (specifically armed reprisals against Arab rioting). In fact, the Haganah even turned over members of the Irgun to the British during "the Season", a period of time where the Haganah and other Jews tried to stop the Irgun and the Lehi because of the creation of the Jewish Agency.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that Slashdot even reported that this was happening, it is not that hard for them to file John Doe lawsuits and then subpoena the universities for the names of the students.
From reading the RIT letter posted above, it looks like the sent subpoenas to the different universities and got the universities to provide the names of the students. I doubt that the RIAA actually got onto I2 themselves.
Or, they could have just sent subpoena's to the Universities requesting the identities of the users. I highly doubt that the RIAA was on I2. It is much easier for them to subpoena the university (as implied by the RIT letter).
I remember back during the lawsuit when slashdotters were complaining that the RIAA wasn't suing the actual infringer. Now that they are suing the actual infringers, why is everyone complaining.
And no, the RIAA isn't going to sue you for making and mp3 rip of your friend's CD (although they would be within their rights to do sue). They are going to sue those who are doing the largest amount of copying. That used to be bootleggers, but it is now everyday Joe college students sharing hundreds of gigabytes of copyrighted material to everyone else on the Internet.
Patent applications are published after 18 months, and the patent applicant can opt out of publication if he certifies that he is not going to file an foreign patent applications.
So when a four year old girl is killed by a suicide bomber, she was not innocent?
I think that "very few" is a stretch. They accept all Computer Science degrees that are accreditted by ABET/CSAC
With a Comp Sci. degree and a Law degree, you can become a patent lawyer and make tons of cash (and be a pariah among nerds).
The main problem regarding contracts is that their whole theorization stands on the equality of the bargain power, which does NOT exist when you look at an employee/employer relationship.
That is not true. Actors in contractual situations are almost never have "equality in bargaining power." My company can choose to use one of many different suppliers for printer paper. Because of that, we can force our supplier to give us very good rates on the paper that we buy. There is no equality between us and the supplier. That doesn't mean that the contract is in any way invalid or unfair.
WRT to the Microsoft incident, I don't see any problems with Microsoft firing him as long as it did not violate anything in his employment agreement. I would be firied quicker than a boston butt at a barbeque competition if I posted pictures of where I work on the Internet. I don't have anything wrong with that. Now, if Microsoft didn't have a provision in his hiring contract about him being an at-will employee or restricting him on what information he could post, then too bad for them.
And which unalienable right are you talking about. The three that were expressly mentioned in the Declaration of Indenpendance are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I am talking about the unalienable right of liberty, namely the liberty to contract as I please.
So why shouldn't I be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts my own speech? Should I not be allowed that freedom?
Amen. But what would you expect from someone who came up with their handle when joining "The Anarchist Commune."
On the other hand, this patent does not apply only to the BASIC language. Each claim of a patent is treated as a seperate patent. Thus claim one covers any system that does the particular operation. Claim two covers a system where the compiler is a BASIC compiler. Claim three covers any system where the operator used is "IsNot" regardless of whether or nor the language is BASIC. Claim four covers any system wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, parser, analyzer, and executable generator (regardless of language).
Nice self-refuting post.
The point was that the sentance could have been taken out of context from the five page letter that Ashcroft sent, not from the AP article that only cites the one sentance. Please show me the context in the letter where it appears.
There is no explicit requirement, but I doubt that anyone will be appointed who isn't an attorney. Who did you have in mind?
These are all different you know... They are? In /. land, all IP is the same, and it is all BBBBBBBAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDD.
I understand that CherryOS has been deceptive in its origins about where the emulation came from, but what would be wrong if they distributed it under a different name? I thought that one of the advantages of the GPL was that it did not impose any naming provisions like the older BSD licenses did. As long as the CherryOS people are following the guidelines of the GPL (relelasing source, etc.), what would be wrong with their distribution?
Why did I see this article? I can't stand reading /. politics section, thus I set my preferences not to show any politics on the front page. However, I keep on getting them.
There is not a limitation to the number of times that you renew a trademark (as long as it is still in use). Thus, they absolutely can be perpetual (unlike patents and copyrights).
Are you in jail? Are you blown up? Yeah, I didn't think so. The government has often restricted where people can congregate. Labelling something a "Free speech zone" is one of the worst choice of wording I have ever heard, but the dumb labelling does not make it unconstitutional.
If, by freedom, you mean: "ruled by an iron fist in an Islamic theocracy".
After the bombing, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing (unlike Arab reactions then and now to attacks on Jews). The parent of this post refers to the Hanagah as a terrorist organization. While that term could be used against the Irgun with much more credence, the Irgun split from the Haganah specifically because the Haganah would not take action that could be considered terrorist actions today (specifically armed reprisals against Arab rioting). In fact, the Haganah even turned over members of the Irgun to the British during "the Season", a period of time where the Haganah and other Jews tried to stop the Irgun and the Lehi because of the creation of the Jewish Agency.